It's not my loss. More like my gain. Im thankful I didn't see bad extras. It's ultimately your loss if the Gotham extras won you over so much that you saw the city having so much personality, because you obviously were so invested that when TDKR rolled around without that kind of thing, you let yourself down.

It's certainly not my loss because I never cared for it to begin with, I didn't expect it in the third, nor was I bothered when I didn't see it in TDKR. My loss? Not at all.

No, it's YOUR loss that the Gotham citizens make you give a damn about Gotham, as was their intention. Nolan didn't cast people of Gotham for the hell of it. It was to make Gotham feel like a real city with conflicted inhabitants of all walks of life. Rich snobs, Cops, felafel vendors, scared kids etc. These people added life to Gotham. That enhanced the dilemmas Gotham faced.

Yes, it's my loss TDKR didn't have that same personality Gotham had in the first two movies. TDKR has a lot of losses for me, that just being one of them. The city was dull and lifeless with no personality. It made Bane's revolution dull and uninteresting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0xyt0xin

Thing is, I just haven't had the draw to watch it like I have for a lot of superhero flicks.

The movie doesn't have a lot of replay value. I find myself skipping over a lot of scenes, particularly Blake centric ones.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

Yep, exactly. Bruce would have quit as Batman if Gotham became a safer place and would have moved on with Rachel, a luxury that didn't happen, but it's for the best when Rachel wasn't in love with Bruce as it was the other way around.

Maybe, maybe not. But Bruce consider that as "destroying his life." And he barely reacted to Alfred, a man he trusted like no one else, lying to him for 8 years about such a sensible matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Bringing them to light, giving them a resolution such as revealing the Dent Act was a lie, revealing that Dent was a murderer and then revealing that Rachel chose to be with Dent, that is developing them. A clear resolution of the truth having its day which is what Alfred spoke about to Bruce.

Revealing the truth is not a resolution. The consequences of the revealing are. And there's barely any.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

I don't find it really vague, but if you do, I'd suggest watch the film again as it doesn't seem vague at all, but perhaps people could see how it could be since Rachel isn't mentioned again, or at least regarding the letter.

I watched it again, that's why I included the dialogue this time. There are two reactions from Bruce Wayne. In the first one, he clearly don't believe Alfred. In the second one, he might or might not, because he didn't react at the lie and its implications at all, but at the fact that Alfred wants to leave.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Although, why do you think Bruce continued to not believe Alfred? When Talia/Miranda brings up Rachel's picture, Bruce doesn't say a word and places the picture down. He knows full well that he believed a lie for eight years.

That might be true. Still, my original point was his reaction at the lie, just as all reactions to all lies set in TDK, were ephemeral and had no resolution. Alfred left, but not because of having lied, Gordon was no judged by people to whom he lied and the Dent thing had no problems at all.

Maybe, maybe not. But Bruce consider that as "destroying his life." And he barely reacted to Alfred, a man he trusted like no one else, lying to him for 8 years about such a sensible matter.

It's not a matter of "maybe, maybe not" at all. Bruce Wayne was set on leaving Batman to be with Rachel in The Dark Knight when he couldn't have the girl in Batman Begins while being Batman.

Quote:

Revealing the truth is not a resolution. The consequences of the revealing are. And there's barely any.

Sometimes there doesn't need to be consequences, as for example, what happened with Alfred telling the truth about Rachel's letter, there didn't have to really be consequences for that.

Quote:

I watched it again, that's why I included the dialogue this time. There are two reactions from Bruce Wayne. In the first one, he clearly don't believe Alfred. In the second one, he might or might not, because he didn't react at the lie and its implications at all, but at the fact that Alfred wants to leave.

He clearly didn't at first, but then when Alfred became far more emotional during this conversation, Bruce did start to believe his butler. Much better than a monotone butler telling Harry Osborn that his father was a killer

Quote:

That might be true. Still, my original point was his reaction at the lie, just as all reactions to all lies set in TDK, were ephemeral and had no resolution. Alfred left, but not because of having lied, Gordon was no judged by people to whom he lied and the Dent thing had no problems at all.

Telling the truth is the resolution. Rachel's letter being revealed didn't need some consequence because there would be no such thing as some consequence besides Alfred fearing he'd have to leave if telling the truth still doesn't make Bruce move on and the people of Gotham still had their "day in court" so to speak with Gordon, albeit it was a kangaroo court.

No, it's YOUR loss that the Gotham citizens make you give a damn about Gotham, as was their intention. Nolan didn't cast people of Gotham for the hell of it. It was to make Gotham feel like a real city with conflicted inhabitants of all walks of life. Rich snobs, Cops, felafel vendors, scared kids etc. These people added life to Gotham. That enhanced the dilemmas Gotham faced.

Yes, it's my loss TDKR didn't have that same personality Gotham had in the first two movies. TDKR has a lot of losses for me, that just being one of them. The city was dull and lifeless with no personality. It made Bane's revolution dull and uninteresting.

But that's you though. You feel something for Gotham because of the soul of the city in TDK and BB in your mind. It's okay if Shauner feels for Gotham without those random extras popping up to voice their opinions.

The way I see it, Nolan won me over from the very beginning, so I didn't need to see any extras in TDKR to have me care for the film because I already do. When I talk about Gotham's "soul" regarding Batman, I'm talking about I wanted more Mayor, I wanted more Gordon on the return and disappearance of Batman. The characters close to the story needed to express their views more than anyone else on the conclusion on this tale.

It's not a matter of "maybe, maybe not" at all. Bruce Wayne was set on leaving Batman to be with Rachel in The Dark Knight when he couldn't have the girl in Batman Begins while being Batman.

There was still no reaction to Alfred lying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Sometimes there doesn't need to be consequences, as for example, what happened with Alfred telling the truth about Rachel's letter, there didn't have to really be consequences for that.

All the purpose of anything happening in any narration is what happens with it, not just that happens. That's why Bruce Wayne's story doesn't end when he becomes Batman. ity's more like that's precisely when the whole story become more interesting. The consequences of it is what matters.

Romeo and Juliet's story doesn't end with them declaring their love. The consequences of it are what matters.

But specially lies. Lies do have consequences. If they don't they just make for lazy storytelling, where key elements are set and no fruition come from it. Just bare mentions.

But if you think there are no needs for consequences, considering those lies were precisely big part of what kept us wanting to keep following this story, please tell me how so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

He clearly didn't at first, but then when Alfred became far more emotional during this conversation, Bruce did start to believe his butler. Much better than a monotone butler telling Harry Osborn that his father was a killer

Everything is.

But tell me what made you think that. because as far as what can be quoted and seen, nothing clearly showed that Bruce believed him. And if he did, he didn't care much for the lie, so him believing Alfred would be unimportant and irrelevant (in which case, why having Alfred lying in the first place?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Telling the truth is the resolution. Rachel's letter being revealed didn't need some consequence because there would be no such thing as some consequence besides Alfred fearing he'd have to leave if telling the truth still doesn't make Bruce move on and the people of Gotham still had their "day in court" so to speak with Gordon, albeit it was a kangaroo court.

You're saying Alfred, the closest man to our hero, the one Batman trust the most in the world, lies about something this big... and the natural thing to happen is that Bruce doesn't care?

Lazy writing. If anything, maybe not a reaction at first, but somewhere in the story. Otherwise, again, why setting a stage where nothing will happen. Good storytelling comes from big drama, not flat resolution.

All the purpose of anything happening in any narration is what happens with it, not just that happens. That's why Bruce Wayne's story doesn't end when he becomes Batman. ity's more like that's precisely when the whole story become more interesting. The consequences of it is what matters.

Romeo and Juliet's story doesn't end with them declaring their love. The consequences of it are what matters.

But specially lies. Lies do have consequences. If they don't they just make for lazy storytelling, where key elements are set and no fruition come from it. Just bare mentions.

But if you think there are no needs for consequences, considering those lies were precisely big part of what kept us wanting to keep following this story, please tell me how so.

I said certain things do not need consequences, and you're kidding if you think everything needs a consequence. Alfred informing Bruce about Rachel's letter didn't need a consequence besides the truth being told. Or, you could look at Alfred having leaving as some sort of consequence, but that's reaching a little.

And like I mentioned as well, Gordon "being in court" can be viewed as a consequence as well, but I view that at the end of TDKR, there didn't need to be some sort of any more conclusion because he's a war hero once again; as he was mentioned as being a war hero in the beginning of TDKR, he is one again and should have obviously been treated as one if Gotham treated Batman so high such as even building a statue on his honor since Batman and Gordon are both guilty of creating the lie.

Quote:

Everything is.

Agreed, lol.

Quote:

But tell me what made you think that. because as far as what can be quoted and seen, nothing clearly showed that Bruce believed him. And if he did, he didn't care much for the lie, so him believing Alfred would be unimportant and irrelevant (in which case, why having Alfred lying in the first place?)

What Bruce says tells me he's aware Alfred is telling the truth. Yes, anyone can pick apart anything to their own interpretation, but what Bruce says, to me, proves that he is aware at the end of their dialogue that he knows Alfred is telling the truth.

And of course he did care for the lie. He said Alfred destroyed his world. Why would it destroy his world if he didn't care about the lie?

Quote:

You're saying Alfred, the closest man to our hero, the one Batman trust the most in the world, lies about something this big... and the natural thing to happen is that Bruce doesn't care?

Lazy writing. If anything, maybe not a reaction at first, but somewhere in the story. Otherwise, again, why setting a stage where nothing will happen. Good storytelling comes from big drama, not flat resolution.

Who said Bruce doesn't care?

AGAIN....Bruce said Alfred destroyed his world. Bruce was made to believe in a lie for eight years and didn't move on, when he could have if he only knew that Rachel planned on being with Harvey.

I wish he dsaid that. He said "You expect to destroy my world and then think we're going to shake hands?" because Alfred was leaving. Nothing about "how could YOU lie to me like that?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

I said certain things do not need consequences, and you're kidding if you think everything needs a consequence. Alfred informing Bruce about Rachel's letter didn't need a consequence besides the truth being told. Or, you could look at Alfred having leaving as some sort of consequence, but that's reaching a little.

Nah, Alfred leaving had other reasons behind entirely different. And I don't say things need consequences, they just do. Lies specially. And lies that are used as pivotal elements for storytelling, specially.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

And like I mentioned as well, Gordon "being in court" can be viewed as a consequence as well, but I view that at the end of TDKR, there didn't need to be some sort of any more conclusion because he's a war hero once again; as he was mentioned as being a war hero in the beginning of TDKR, he is one again and should have obviously been treated as one if Gotham treated Batman so high such as even building a statue on his honor since Batman and Gordon are both guilty of creating the lie.

That "court" was a joke. A corrupt justice system that could be easily judging people for trying to stop Bane.

And what about all those criminals that were going to be re-prosecuted if Dent was proven to be a murderer?

A war hero, lol. Nice treatment for having lied for so long to so many people. I guess Lincoln was wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

What Bruce says tells me he's aware Alfred is telling the truth. Yes, anyone can pick apart anything to their own interpretation, but what Bruce says, to me, proves that he is aware at the end of their dialogue that he knows Alfred is telling the truth.

And of course he did care for the lie. He said Alfred destroyed his world. Why would it destroy his world if he didn't care about the lie?

He didn't say "you destroyed my world." He said if he expected to do such a thing and just shake hands. Yes, he probably believed him, he was far more worried about what he had to do next. Anyways, the movie never cared about how to overcome such a problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Who said Bruce doesn't care?

AGAIN....Bruce said Alfred destroyed his world. Bruce was made to believe in a lie for eight years and didn't move on, when he could have if he only knew that Rachel planned on being with Harvey.

He said it with the same emotion he said everything else in the scene. I wish he had considered all you say when he asked for an explanation for such a lie.

I wish he dsaid that. He said "You expect to destroy my world and then think we're going to shake hands?" because Alfred was leaving. Nothing about "how could YOU lie to me like that?"

He did say Alfred destroyed his world, lol.

But we're going back to interpretation again. Because he didn't say what you wanted, you propose he didn't actually, truly say anything about Alfred lying, but Bruce is aware Alfred lied and he meant it when he said Alfred destroyed his world just then.

Quote:

Nah, Alfred leaving had other reasons behind entirely different. And I don't say things need consequences, they just do. Lies specially. And lies that are used as pivotal elements for storytelling, specially.

Not all lies need consequences either, especially when the truth sets itself free. And once again, I only said it's reaching to say Alfred leaving is part of the lie, but yes, we're on the same path in knowing that the lie and Alfred leaving has no connection except leaving was Alfred's last resort in trying to get Bruce Wayne to quit as Batman since he wasn't Batman any longer.

Quote:

That "court" was a joke. A corrupt justice system that could be easily judging people for trying to stop Bane.

If you believe so, then fair enough. I found the kangaroo court to be irony especially with Gordon being there. As Crane said, his guilt was already determined once he stepped up for his sentencing. But once again, what did you want to see in the last ten minutes of TDKR once the siege ends in regards to the Dent lie and Gordon?

Quote:

And what about all those criminals that were going to be re-prosecuted if Dent was proven to be a murderer?

You meant the Blackgate inmates that joined Bane's army and who fought the GCPD? Yah, I wonder what will happen to them...not like they did anything bad once they escaped prison...lol.

Quote:

A war hero, lol. Nice treatment for having lied for so long to so many people. I guess Lincoln was wrong.

So you must have a problem with how they celebrated Batman in the end then, yes?

Quote:

He didn't say "you destroyed my world." He said if he expected to do such a thing and just shake hands. Yes, he probably believed him, he was far more worried about what he had to do next. Anyways, the movie never cared about how to overcome such a problem.

It means the same thing, lol. Bruce said Alfred destroyed his world, but obviously in a way that you seem to think its meaning is different, but imo, it means the same.

And there was never a problem to overcome. Alfred tells Bruce the truth, Bruce can't even look at a picture of Rachel anymore and his final moment was him having to let go of Rachel which could also be viewed in the sense that Talia played a part as a dark-mirrored version of Rachel.

Quote:

He said it with the same emotion he said everything else in the scene. I wish he had considered all you say when he asked for an explanation for such a lie.

That same emotion was perfectly fine for that entire scene and it was a perfectly reasonable emotion that told me all I needed in that scene.

But we're going back to interpretation again. Because he didn't say what you wanted, you propose he didn't actually, truly say anything about Alfred lying, but Bruce is aware Alfred lied and he meant it when he said Alfred destroyed his world just then.

It is probably the absolute lack of emphasis what confuses me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Not all lies need consequences either, especially when the truth sets itself free. And once again, I only said it's reaching to say Alfred leaving is part of the lie, but yes, we're on the same path in knowing that the lie and Alfred leaving has no connection except leaving was Alfred's last resort in trying to get Bruce Wayne to quit as Batman since he wasn't Batman any longer.

Lies need consequences, specially when they're big and set as crucial part of a plot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

If you believe so, then fair enough. I found the kangaroo court to be irony especially with Gordon being there. As Crane said, his guilt was already determined once he stepped up for his sentencing. But once again, what did you want to see in the last ten minutes of TDKR once the siege ends in regards to the Dent lie and Gordon?

No lawyers, no witnesses, no due process. That's not something I believe, it's something clearly stated in the movie.

I expected Gordon properly judged, criminals re-processed, etc. Not all on screen necessarily, but at least a word about it, a little something that tells me that Nolan cares for the plot key elements he sets up himself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

You meant the Blackgate inmates that joined Bane's army and who fought the GCPD? Yah, I wonder what will happen to them...not like they did anything bad once they escaped prison...lol.

Did you see any one of the mob bosses of TDK?

And I don't think whatever happened in that anarchy state counts exactly as they would had they happened in a normal legal state.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

So you must have a problem with how they celebrated Batman in the end then, yes?

I mentioned that somewhere, yes. But then again I have a problem with everything that happened with Batman at the end of the movie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

That same emotion was perfectly fine for that entire scene and it was a perfectly reasonable emotion that told me all I needed in that scene.

Lies need consequences, specially when they're big and set as crucial part of a plot.

The Dent lie being revealed, I'll give you that. Rachel...that was handled just fine I'd say.

Quote:

No lawyers, no witnesses, no due process. That's not something I believe, it's something clearly stated in the movie.

I expected Gordon properly judged, criminals re-processed, etc. Not all on screen necessarily, but at least a word about it, a little something that tells me that Nolan cares for the plot key elements he sets up himself.

I didn't expect that myself, and perfectly fine with the irony of the kangaroo court where the people around him were probably most of the people that Gordon sent to prison. And just because he didn't give you something you wanted to see doesn't mean Nolan didn't care.

Quote:

Did you see any one of the mob bosses of TDK?

You mean the ones that died in TDK?

Quote:

And I don't think whatever happened in that anarchy state counts exactly as they would had they happened in a normal legal state.

So what...they will all be set free? Lol. The inmates, the LoS members...you're saying they will all be set free?

Quote:

I mentioned that somewhere, yes. But then again I have a problem with everything that happened with Batman at the end of the movie.

Well that's good. I am glad you can actually say you didn't like how they celebrated Batman as much as Gordon not receiving a proper trial. I never hear that, so it's hypocritical for the certain posters who would declare one being great and the other bad, but if you didn't like both, then sorry you got what you got in TDKR for both Batman and Gordon.

Quote:

Drama 1: say everything with the same emphasis and emotion.

Why would Bruce become louder? What point would that make? It would make none because you should have understand where he was coming from with that tone he used.

Absolutely. The scene was vague about it, which is the very first thing I said about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

The Dent lie being revealed, I'll give you that. Rachel...that was handled just fine I'd say.

Not when you have all this story about these two men. And when they have their biggest crisis... one just seem to not care, and the other leaves, leaving the crisis without any important resolution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

I didn't expect that myself, and perfectly fine with the irony of the kangaroo court where the people around him were probably most of the people that Gordon sent to prison. And just because he didn't give you something you wanted to see doesn't mean Nolan didn't care. Saying that is just bogus.

We can't know if Nolan cared. Just that Gordon's lie was forgotten by people of Gotham.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

So what...they will all be set free? Lol. The inmates, the LoS members...you're saying they will all be set free?

We don't know. The movie doesn't specify. Kind of what i was saying.

But LoS's members weren't prosecuted by Dent, were they?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Well that's good. I am glad you can actually say you didn't like how they celebrated Batman as much as Gordon not receiving a proper trial. I never hear that, so it's hypocritical for them, but if you didn't like both, then sorry you got what you got in TDKR for both Batman and Gordon.

Part of the life of a superhero movies fan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Why would Bruce become louder? What point would that make? It would make none because you should have understand where he was coming from with that tone he used.

I didn't say louder. But the first thing you're taught when studying drama is to differentiate and not say Happy birthday!!! the same way you say 'Your parents are dead.' Unless the scene really needs so.

Not when you have all this story about these two men. And when they have their biggest crisis... one just seem to not care, and the other leaves, leaving the crisis without any important resolution.

One DOES care and the other leaves because it's his only resort in trying to think the other will quit being Batman.

Quote:

We can't know if Nolan cared. Just that Gordon's lie was forgotten by people of Gotham.

A director will always care man, lol.

Quote:

We don't know. The movie doesn't specify. Kind of what i was saying.

But LoS's members weren't prosecuted by Dent, were they?

No offense to you when I say this, but it's foolish to think the men responsible with the siege(the Blackgate inmates, the LoS members) are going to be set free when they ran Gotham City for five months and then waged war against the GCPD. They will be prosecuted once more and this time things will stick so in a way, Batman took care of organized crime yet again(TDKR culminated Batman's internal conflict(organized crime) and his external conflict(the LoS) into one antagonist).

But, okay, you're talking about all the lower-level guys Dent took down in TDK...those could be assumed to be placed under the Dent Act ruling and were some of the 1,000 prisoners in Blackgate Prison, which ended up becoming part of Bane's army.

Quote:

Part of the life of a superhero movies fan.

Indeed, but I am sincerely glad you are at least not a fan of both outcomes to Batman and Gordon. Some CBM fans aren't as realist as you are where they will like one thing, but are surefire hypocrites with another, haha. But yes, I even have quarrels with CBMs.

Quote:

I didn't say louder. But the first thing you're taught when studying drama is to differentiate and not say Happy birthday!!! the same way you say 'Your parents are dead.' Unless the scene really needs so.

This quiet tone Bruce has in that scene says wonders...he's tired, he just got done with his Batman duties and having to deal with all of this that Alfred is bringing up. It's a lovely choice that Nolan wanted Christian Bale to use, imo.

I rewatched part of TDKR the other day, and have to say, from the visual standpoint, my favorite section of the film was the beginning. The nighttime shots of Gotham were perfect, especially Selina's exchange at the bar. Lighting and locations really made the film feel like a section out of an episode of The Animated series (and Daggett's inclusion helped it.) However, this aesthetic was lost when they did daytime sequences, such as the train station. With all of the vintage trains and unique/Art-Deco stations, I was disappointed they did not select a station that complemented the design of the nocturnal Gotham: either something gritty and smoke-choked, or a station with a healthy amount of ornamentation.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Aaron

"I've known since I first took over the series that I wanted to eventually have someone else pick up the hammer," says the writer. "It's kind of a time-honored Thor tradition at this point, isn't it? Going back to the days of Beta Ray Bill."

I ended up encountering textual blockage with that section: I was thinking something else other than I wrote.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Aaron

"I've known since I first took over the series that I wanted to eventually have someone else pick up the hammer," says the writer. "It's kind of a time-honored Thor tradition at this point, isn't it? Going back to the days of Beta Ray Bill."

I found a nice set of retrospective reviews on all three films. The guy is a coming more from the perspective of a movie fan than a comic book fanboy, which I found to be a refreshing change of pace, especially for Youtube fan reviews.

Just a heads up for the staunch Rises critics, I wouldn't bother with the Rises one. He gets a bit confrontational and smart alecky about a lot of the common complaints and criticisms- but my intention in posting this is not to ignite more debates or fuel the flames. I think it's always fun to hear someone passionate about the films reflect on them, as it's a small way to revisit your own experiences and memories with them.

I ended up encountering textual blockage with that section: I was thinking something else other than I wrote.

Well, after thinking about my reply right after I posted it, you could have meant the daytime scene of the GCPD walking into the tunnels, which were train tunnels anyways, so you could've been writing the same thing that you were thinking.

I found a nice set of retrospective reviews on all three films. The guy is a coming more from the perspective of a movie fan than a comic book fanboy, which I found to be a refreshing change of pace, especially for Youtube fan reviews.

Just a heads up for the staunch Rises critics, I wouldn't bother with the Rises one. He gets a bit confrontational and smart alecky about a lot of the common complaints and criticisms- but my intention in posting this is not to ignite more debates or fuel the flames. I think it's always fun to hear someone passionate about the films reflect on them, as it's a small way to revisit your own experiences and memories with them.

Nice, dude. Thanks for the link.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotham's Knight

When you're a show that has the writer of The Dark Knight, Jesus, Ben Linus and produced by JJ Abrams, it's hard to get cancelled.

I found a nice set of retrospective reviews on all three films. The guy is a coming more from the perspective of a movie fan than a comic book fanboy, which I found to be a refreshing change of pace, especially for Youtube fan reviews.

Just a heads up for the staunch Rises critics, I wouldn't bother with the Rises one. He gets a bit confrontational and smart alecky about a lot of the common complaints and criticisms- but my intention in posting this is not to ignite more debates or fuel the flames. I think it's always fun to hear someone passionate about the films reflect on them, as it's a small way to revisit your own experiences and memories with them.

I've watched bits and pieces of those reviews, I enjoyed them very much so. I still have to re-watch the BB one though. He does get a little bit on the confrontational side with defending Rises, but it didn't rub me the wrong way or anything.

I feel the gripes with inconsistencies and "plot holes" is overblown and overly nitpicky. Just as many complaints can be lobbed at TDK but people conveniently ignore them or find ways to justify them, but if you do that for Rises you are an apologist and grasping at straws.

8/10 for me, mostly for outstanding visuals and grand scope of the film. Story was also very good and we got some very good performances as well. Overall, I was still very happy with what we ended up with though I think it just needed more polishing.

99 percent of the problems with this film could be fixed from the editing room.

This is what I'd cut-

Blake visiting the boys home, which slows down the story and really doesn't add much to the overall plot. Nothing we wouldn't have found out anyways. Weakest scenes in the film.

Alfred telegraphing the ending with the conversation with Bruce. More on this later.

Bruce sleeping with Miranda. Stupidest plot choice imaginable. Can't believe this even when I think about it now. Makes me rage, remove it from the film because all it is a con. No reason for it to be there, it doesn't move the plot along, it makes no sense in the overall story. Remove the entire scene(I always skip it while watching the Blu-ray).

You cut all of the above and you shave off a few minutes of the first hour. You introduce Batman earlier in the film, and you get the to Batman/Bane fight much sooner. Makes for a much tighter first act.

The other problem with the film is after Bruce escapes and returns to Gotham, it’s a jumbled mess from there until he catches back up with Gordon on the ice. They should have removed the whole Miranda/Gordon thing after meeting with Foley and kept Miranda with Fox. Sloppy editing or planning in that whole sequence. I can't believe it how rushed and really lazy that makes the movie feel in retrospect. It's frustrating.

And now, what I would have slightly changed up. The ending!

Pretty much the ending we got, but a bit different.

Alfred is left the estate after Bruce is declared dead, is informed pearls are still missing. Blake still left the map. Same Morgan Freeman, and Gordon sequence- leaving them to wonder as we the viewers are. Since the ending not telegraphed by Alfred in sequence earlier in the film, and we know Bruce can track the pearls we can expand on the suspense of the ending sequence. We begin to see Alfred remembering this, and he begins to track pearls. Prehaps we see him getting off a plane, traveling to the cafe scene, camera focuses in on Selina with pearls on, as Alfred RISES to confront her about the pearls, she moves her head to reveal Bruce to the audience and Alfred, they see each other both smile and he goes to join them. In a way similar feeling to the end of the Shawshank Redemption. Cut to Blake entering the cave, same final sequence, final shot.

Granted this would have made for a more open ending, maybe not what Nolan was going for because he wanted to end Bruce's story. Though I think it's perfect because with Alfred in control of the estate, Blake being lead to the Batcave, it gives us the feel that Batman whether it's Blake or Bruce could actually return without question. Could have also set up an epic The Dark Knight Returns type sequel in 10 years.